My first read of the council packet raise a question.
First, Jacobsen Development Fee Waiver Seams to be wrong on several levels.
Wilson and Addington were against the Fee Waver.
The Justification for waiving fees is that the Mobile Home Park that pre existed on the site required all infrastructure to be in place sufficient to handle the burden of the New Use and Future Use of the property to be developed. The development exceeds the lot that the Mobile Home Park was on. There will be a massive pavement and hard surfaces that will cause run off. The claim that this run off will be handled on site is bold and not substantiated by engineering reports or drawings showing massive under ground facilities to handle downpours or our occasional gully washers. With out proper certification from and Engineer who will assume the financial burden of being wrong the fees should not be waived. Park and Open Space Acquisition Fee should not be eliminated in this case because the Development will cover what was previously set back ranch homes that had the visual impact of open spaces with large trees. Traffic and other fees should also be re-instated and used as needed rather than waived. If unused for unforeseen problem mitigation in 10 years those fees should be returned to the Developer, as a reward for not creating a cost to the City to be burdened with.
The Planning Commissions Limited Scope of Authority has no way to insure or protect the city from Plan/Design/Engineering Problems of this project.
The contract does not insist on a Competent Review by County Health and Traffic Engineers
The home owner who is requesting a reduction in the Park Fee has a point, it is excessive, and if Jacobsen and Stater's has it waived their application should be to also waive it to zero and the city should abandon the fee all together.
The other side of the argument is that if the fee is necessary and if it were collected and not waived from Stater's and Jacobsen and other larger Hand Picked Developers, then there would be funds available to off set the cost of the Base Ball Field and help along the other parks, dog and Blue Mt.
In the application it is acknowledged that the Development on Barton Road will have an irreversible impact on the land should in its self justify the collection of the Development Fees to off set the overlooked unintended consequences of the Development being built on that site, as it is a real conversion of use of the property, not a similar use or load or impact of what was existing prior to the New Construction being approved.
Herman Hilkey's application to have his Post Council Person Benefit be changed. The purpose of the current benefit was to act as a bridge to Medicare. If that is justified or not is another question. To shift that to a Life Insurance Reimbursement is inappropriate. The need for Life Insurance is an on going need. If they agree to allow a change it should be for a limited amount of time. It would also be sort of allowing him to double dip as his current Health Insurance is paid for by the Tax Payers via his school employment. He is shifting it to Life Insurance because he has his Health Insurance already paid for by the taxpayers.
How many of the City Council support Government Medical Care or Life Insurance for Citizens? Remember Schwab's understanding that Council Members are not Employees. There seems to be an "Entitlement" here that can be cut.
Listed as recipients of the Council benefit were only Hugh Grant, Byron Matteson and Herman Hilkey. What other Employees are also being paid full or half medical as part of their "Retirement" Packages. Oh and where can the citizens sign up for the plan if they are interested? How much has been spent this way over the past 30 years and who were the benefactors of that expenditure? The documents on this topic are in the last 40 pages of the file, well worth the read.
Is the use of the funds to replace the Baseball field from the right source? Is this added debt that comes with added long term financial obligations that the City will have to fund on a continuing basis. What are the costs associated for future costs of operations. Is this a permanent ball field or a temporary one? Will this expendature of RDA funds obligate the expendature of additional housing build requirements? What are the other tangents that will come into play if the baseball park used these funds rather than say the funds from Staters and Jacobsen?
